I was thinking more of this: https://jacobin.com/2016/08/mexico-teacher-union-strikes-oaxaca/ https://jacobin.com/2016/08/mexico-teacher-union-strikes-oax... D

I was thinking more of this: https://jacobin.com/2016/08/mexico-teacher-union-strikes-oaxaca/ https://jacobin.com/2016/08/mexico-teacher-union-strikes-oax... Describing the prosecution of the head of the teachers union in 2013: > Mexican Attorney General Jesús Murillo Karam charged Gordillo with money laundering, saying she had used the union funds to pay for airplanes, pilot training, her plastic surgeries, and purchases of luxury items in the United States. Juan Díaz de la Torre, who was a loyal member of her union caucus, became head of the union. > While Gordillo was very likely guilty of the embezzlement of which she was accused, such practices are common in the Mexican labor bureaucracy. The motive for jailing her was political: first she had betrayed the PRI, and then she had opposed Peña Nieto. The part about “such practices are common in the labor bureaucracy” is telling. Corruption is so common, that any prosecution can (accurately!) be labeled political is one of the best signs of a corrupt system. This isn’t about an employer controlled union. The union is heavily autonomous. But if Mexican leaders wanted to get rid of unions, all they would have to do is enforce the law. Guiliani did something similar when mayor of NY. He announced sweeping investigations into union corruption, then negotiated very favorable contracts while prosecution was hanging over union leaders heads, then called off the investigations when he got the terms he wanted.